The First Republican Debate: Three Of Them Don't Believe In Evolution!

[DealMonkey]

As the voice of reason ( ) I'd like to point out that this whole "debate" between creationism and evolution is futile. Creationism isn't science, it's religion. There's no point in going any farther. Even if you did go farther, you'd find that people believe in religious principles like creationism because they do. There's no evidence what they believe in is factual, yet they believe it all the same. Science on the other hand, is slowly explaining the previously unexplainable, but it doesn't have all the answers either.

 

[bobdelt]

There is no absolute proof that one organism can evolve into a different one. Fact.

That being said, there is obviously Survival of the fittest, which is the stupidest saying of all time, as naturally the unfit won't survive, and the fit do - by definition.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
There is no absolute proof that one organism can evolve into a different one. Fact.

That being said, there is obviously Survival of the fittest, which is the stupidest saying of all time, as naturally the unfit won't survive, and the fit do - by definition.

My head hurts again

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
There is no absolute proof that one organism can evolve into a different one. Fact.

That being said, there is obviously Survival of the fittest, which is the stupidest saying of all time, as naturally the unfit won't survive, and the fit do - by definition.

There's no absolute proof that we even exist in the first place. But I bet if I slap you in the face, you'll feel it.

 

[chucky2]

Face it, we're decendants from apes which were left here as smart pets of aliens. If everyone would just accept this, it'd make all our lives lots easier...

Chuck

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
There is no absolute proof that one organism can evolve into a different one. Fact.

Absolutely incorrect. Start here, and if you need more evidence I have plenty of links.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Its not at all faulty. If you (and others) wan to argue that what the bible didn't say is not falsifiable well we will be here forever (the bible didnt say a lot things that we know to be fact now). Im arguing what the bible DID say--creationism as fact. It is "the word of god," right? If god is all knowing, why was abiogenesis (or evolution) NOT included in the bible. This basic premise makes the bible diametrically opposed to knowledge of such things. If god doesnt know about it, how can one accept things as empirical fact? The bible has made some astoundingly incorrect statements that have been falsified. I am applying logic and making the statement that creationism is in opposition with abiogenesis. Since the bible states that god created everything proof of abiogenesis (even evolution) is directly falsifying "the word of god." I dont care what kind of mental gymnastics one has to play to be true to god AND science. Its intellectually dishonest to do so, iff your god makes claims that are inaccurate. I know dor a fact that the xian god has done so.

I'm sorry homercles but you're wrong. Abiogenesis and creationism are not "diametrically opposed" at all. As I said earlier, I agree completely with your point of view, but I don't try to argue with faulty logic.

You're right that the bible very clearly states a creation story, and I believe you're right that the suggestion that abiogenesis was the beginning of any life on Earth would in fact disprove the creation stories. But that's not what we're talking about - you claimed earlier that to falsify the creation stories, one must simply observe abiogenesis today. But the creation stories say nothing about abiogenesis and whether or not it can happen, it merely says (via certain interpretations) that abiogenesis was not the origin of life. So if abiogenesis were observed in a lab, a creationist could easily claim that God created life and the capacity for abiogenesis.

It would still be a victory of sorts for evolutionists, as it would prove conclusively that abiogenesis is viable as the origin of life, but it would not falsify creationism. And this type of thinking is not mental gymnastics, this is basic logic, and the ability to put together complete and coherent arguments is paramount when we are trying to eliminate ignorance and promote evolution in the face of fundamentalist Christians.

 

[zuljinAF]

Originally posted by: Takemaru

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zuljinAF
I think the issue here is that there shouldn't be an extremist on either side of the debate in control.. IE a creationist that pulls all science out of the class room, or a evolutionist that refuses to allow creationism to be taught in schools. Case in point in HS i had a biology teacher that was an anthetist and every semester he hasked the same question on a test, "true or false Mankind evolved from primates?" If you answered false he marked it wrong, and every semester the people that refused to accept his beliefs went to the school board and got his question thrown out. That type of question doesn't need to be on a test at all. As either answer is forcing your personnel beliefs on someone else.
There is room for both so teach both & let individuals decide on what they believe. As for a leader that prays, again it is a personnel choice. If that's the single deciding factor on who you vote for then so be it, it's not what determines my vote thats for sure.

What a steaming turd of a post that was.

First of all creationism doesn't deserve to be taught in science classes because it's not science. And second of all, it's not "extremist" to want actual science to be taught in high school science classes. Creationism is not science. I wouldn't want them teaching auto repair in science class either, so nothing against your personal beliefs, but its irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Is it really so much to ask that you limit your bible stories to church?

I agree creationism has no place in the school system, if you want to learn creationism you have the option to take theology in college. We don't teach theology to children in school so it has no place in the public school system.

If people don't want creationism taught in school b.c. of bible stories, or Christians forcing thier beliefs on others... then why force someone that doesn't belive evolution to hear the scientific view? that's why I say teach all views of how the universe got started and let individuals make thier own decsions. That or give students the choice earlier between a science class and a theology class.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: zuljinAF
If people don't want creationism taught in school b.c. of bible stories, or Christians forcing thier beliefs on others... then why force someone that doesn't belive evolution to hear the scientific view? that's why I say teach all views of how the universe got started and let individuals make thier own decsions. That or give students the choice earlier between a science class and a theology class.

What a ridiculous idea! Especially considering that evolutionary theory never even touches on how the universe got started. But I digress. What if some kid claims he doesn't believe in math, are you going to allow him to skip math classes too? Face it, science classes are part of a well-rounded education. Creationism isn't science. If you're such a fundie that you can't handle sitting through a science class, part of which may include evolution, there's always an option for you: Home schooling. The perfect solution for the fundie parents who want to keep their kids ignorant. Problem solved.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As someone applying for an NIH grant in a couple months, I am a little upset that CONGRESS hasn't increased NIH's budget to keep up with inflation. Note the emphasis on CONGRESS, who are the ones who pass funding bills for this sort of thing. The president does not. Is it too much to ask congress to do their job for once and take a little power away from El Presidente?

Increased NIH budget? Nah! Just keep lying to American high schoolers and undergrads about the wonderful opportunities in science research and let the sheeple (of which I was one) go to grad school, get their PhDs, and do countless postdocs. As the supply of people in the pyramid scheme increases, you can pay them even less! Also, we'll import foreign students and foreign PhDs to work as postdocs, allowing the wages to go even lower!

In the late '80's the NSF lied about a projected shortfall of 700,000 chemistry-types. Maybe the NSF and NIH could lie again and claim a projected shortfall of 4 million biotech scientists. That'll get the butts into the undergrad majors and the grad programs!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zuljinAF
If people don't want creationism taught in school b.c. of bible stories, or Christians forcing thier beliefs on others... then why force someone that doesn't belive evolution to hear the scientific view? that's why I say teach all views of how the universe got started and let individuals make thier own decsions. That or give students the choice earlier between a science class and a theology class.

What a ridiculous idea! Especially considering that evolutionary theory never even touches on how the universe got started. But I digress. What if some kid claims he doesn't believe in math, are you going to allow him to skip math classes too? Face it, science classes are part of a well-rounded education.

Creationism isn't science.

If you're such a fundie that you can't handle sitting through a science class, part of which may include evolution, there's always an option for you: Home schooling. The perfect solution for the fundie parents who want to keep their kids ignorant.

Problem solved.

BHFT

Bolded and Highlighted For Truth :thumbsup:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I suspect that no one really cares too much about whether or not a President believes in or doesn't believe in evolution, per se. However, belief in evolution is a proxy for having strong religious belief which is why the candidates mentioned it and why we care. So, why is religious belief important? Because, as mentioned, it touches on many issues, including:

Abortion (!!!)
Stem Cell Research
Birth Control
Assisted Suicide
School Funding and vouchers
Free Speech (pornography, violence, obscenity, critiques of religion, books, etc.)
Religious Freedom
Special exceptions to laws for people of certain religions.
Environmental concerns (God says everything's gonna be OK!)
Population Growth (why do they need birth control and abortion in the third world?)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo are better candidates for Darwin Awards than the Presidency. :laugh:

<Sigh>. Why is it that the only candidate who wants to do something about mass immigration and global labor arbitrage also happens to be a religious wacko? It's just America's luck I suppose, that or secular candidates who would hold the same views on mass immigration and global labor arbitrage are marginalized and never get anywhere in the other party.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Face it, we're decendants from apes which were left here as smart pets of aliens. If everyone would just accept this, it'd make all our lives lots easier...

What's kind of sad is that the religionists could just modify their beliefs a little bit and believe in both evolution and creationism and God at the same time. All they have to do is say:

"I believe evolution occurred and it was God's way of creating life. God created single-celled organisms from molecules and then caused them willed them to evolve into multicellular beings." However, that goes against the notion that the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

 

[Stunt]

I couldn't really give a crap what candidates believe in so long as it doesn't impact their policies. A woman's right to choose, gay rights, stem cell research should not be affected by a presidential candidate.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Running for President: "So easy a caveman can do it!"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: zuljinAF
If people don't want creationism taught in school b.c. of bible stories, or Christians forcing thier beliefs on others... then why force someone that doesn't belive evolution to hear the scientific view? that's why I say teach all views of how the universe got started and let individuals make thier own decsions. That or give students the choice earlier between a science class and a theology class.

Again, All Points Of View Are Not Equally Valid. Evolution is not a 'belief' any more then math is a belief. (as mentioned above by Dealmonkey)

Evolution and creationism are not two equally competing theories. One is the best understanding mankind has of how life came to be as it is backed up by millions of hours of research, and another one is a story in a book. If that's okay by you, should we then also teach them that out of the void came Gaia who immaculately conceived Uranus, who then together gave birth to all life? Why stop at Greek mythology? You have a right to keep your children ignorant yourself through home schooling, but don't expect the schools that we all pay for do society the manifest disservice of perpetuating that stupidity.

 

[zuljinAF]

again let me say I believe in both... and I'm happy with that, Science and religion can work well together. However, since ya'll proclaim home schooling as the answer, if some believes so strongly in creationism as to take their kid out of school, then why should they have to pay tax money to go teach something they don't believe? As for where you draw the line on which idea to teach, use the listing of nationally recognized religions. Is it really such an awful thing to spend a day or two, saying here are all the ideas as how life got started your free to choose what you want to believe.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: zuljinAF
again let me say I believe in both... and I'm happy with that, Science and religion can work well together. However, since ya'll proclaim home schooling as the answer, if some believes so strongly in creationism as to take their kid out of school, then why should they have to pay tax money to go teach something they don't believe? As for where you draw the line on which idea to teach, use the listing of nationally recognized religions. Is it really such an awful thing to spend a day or two, saying here are all the ideas as how life got started your free to choose what you want to believe.

Nationally recognized religions? Who gets to decide which ones those are? Let me guess... the people in power which come from pretty much one or two major religions. Something tells me there would be plenty of other unhappy people out there with that one.

Why should I have to pay for a military that does things I don't agree with? Why should I have to pay my share for those worthless abstinence based sex education programs? Why should I have to pay Bush's salary when every day he works he does more things I don't like?

Here's why: when you partake in a government's services that they provide you (roads, infrastructure, police protection, etc) you implicitly accept the conditions that it places upon you for those services. They take the form of taxation and whatever laws they have decided to place over you. Tailoring each individual's tax package to the services he wishes to partake in would be not only a logistical impossibility, but silly. (I can just see now all the people that wouldn't want police protection or something until their house was being robbed) If you don't like it you should try to get people elected who will teach creationism. (good luck... well... maybe in some podunk state like Kansas)

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
I'm sorry homercles but you're wrong. Abiogenesis and creationism are not "diametrically opposed" at all. As I said earlier, I agree completely with your point of view, but I don't try to argue with faulty logic.

You're right that the bible very clearly states a creation story, and I believe you're right that the suggestion that abiogenesis was the beginning of any life on Earth would in fact disprove the creation stories. But that's not what we're talking about - you claimed earlier that to falsify the creation stories, one must simply observe abiogenesis today. But the creation stories say nothing about abiogenesis and whether or not it can happen, it merely says (via certain interpretations) that abiogenesis was not the origin of life. So if abiogenesis were observed in a lab, a creationist could easily claim that God created life and the capacity for abiogenesis.

It would still be a victory of sorts for evolutionists, as it would prove conclusively that abiogenesis is viable as the origin of life, but it would not falsify creationism. And this type of thinking is not mental gymnastics, this is basic logic, and the ability to put together complete and coherent arguments is paramount when we are trying to eliminate ignorance and promote evolution in the face of fundamentalist Christians.

By inference abiogenesis and creationism are diametrically opposed. I am willing to concede on certain points, but this is not one of them. Not stating something does not make it free from criticism. If i state that active atoms (hot) are evenly distributed with inactive atoms (cold). I have made a claim that can be empirically disproved. In effect, either atoms are uniformly distributed or they are not. Either god created EVERYTHING or s/he did not. This is not faulty logic. It takes exercise in mental gymnastics to infer that god included abiogenesis (or evolution) but decided to not include it in her/his word. This is intellectual dishonesty and we can continue this discussion ad nauseam because of all the things that were not explicitly stated. We disagree, end of story. Abiogenesis negates creationism, you have not provided a logical reason for this to not be true. I have.

 

[zuljinAF]

eh, I'm not sure who made the list of religions, it's fairly lengthy though, and includes several none-main stream religions such as Wiccan. I'll try and find the list again later.

I will stand by my point though that any curriculum that forces a student to believe that we all evolved from a monkey is just as wrong as any curriculum that says we all appeared one day just as we are. Both sides need to be open minded and understand what they see to be true is not what everyone sees to be true.

As for the Tax thing you're probably right, I just get pissed when I see how much of my property tax goes towards a public school system when i have no kids

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: zuljinAF
again let me say I believe in both... and I'm happy with that, Science and religion can work well together. However, since ya'll proclaim home schooling as the answer, if some believes so strongly in creationism as to take their kid out of school, then why should they have to pay tax money to go teach something they don't believe? As for where you draw the line on which idea to teach, use the listing of nationally recognized religions. Is it really such an awful thing to spend a day or two, saying here are all the ideas as how life got started your free to choose what you want to believe.

Science and religion are diametrically opposed with respect to knowledge acquisition. On one hand you have belief and the other empiricism. You cant view belief and by logic one can only adopt both through hypocrisy. Apparently many here dont have a problem with being hypocrites, i do. Good luck with that. Its sad that belief philosophies are so ingrained that hypocrisy is allowed to run rampant.

 

[Enig101]

I always find it humorous when someone says they don't "believe" in evolution. You might as well state you don't "believe" in gravity.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
I'm sorry homercles but you're wrong. Abiogenesis and creationism are not "diametrically opposed" at all. As I said earlier, I agree completely with your point of view, but I don't try to argue with faulty logic.

You're right that the bible very clearly states a creation story, and I believe you're right that the suggestion that abiogenesis was the beginning of any life on Earth would in fact disprove the creation stories. But that's not what we're talking about - you claimed earlier that to falsify the creation stories, one must simply observe abiogenesis today. But the creation stories say nothing about abiogenesis and whether or not it can happen, it merely says (via certain interpretations) that abiogenesis was not the origin of life. So if abiogenesis were observed in a lab, a creationist could easily claim that God created life and the capacity for abiogenesis.

It would still be a victory of sorts for evolutionists, as it would prove conclusively that abiogenesis is viable as the origin of life, but it would not falsify creationism. And this type of thinking is not mental gymnastics, this is basic logic, and the ability to put together complete and coherent arguments is paramount when we are trying to eliminate ignorance and promote evolution in the face of fundamentalist Christians.

By inference abiogenesis and creationism are diametrically opposed. I am willing to concede on certain points, but this is not one of them. Not stating something does not make it free from criticism. If i state that active atoms (hot) are evenly distributed with inactive atoms (cold). I have made a claim that can be empirically disproved. In effect, either atoms are uniformly distributed or they are not. Either god created EVERYTHING or s/he did not. This is not faulty logic. It takes exercise in mental gymnastics to infer that god included abiogenesis (or evolution) but decided to not include it in her/his word. This is intellectual dishonesty and we can continue this discussion ad nauseam because of all the things that were not explicitly stated. We disagree, end of story. Abiogenesis negates creationism, you have not provided a logical reason for this to not be true. I have.

The Bible says nothing about Quantum Mechanics either, does that mean that the discovery of it has disproven creationism? What you're saying makes no sense. Just stop for a few minutes and think FFS.

YES, proof that abiogenesis was responsible for the first life on Earth would disprove creationism.
No, observing abiogenesis in a lab today would not.

Just f'n think for a minute.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Yeah, whatever....

Like you haven't made a typo before?

I guess since you have nothing to say, you want to point out any errors you can find... Sigh...

Must be the new way... If you can't win a debate, then lets just point out any spelling errors.

LOL, a "typo" is when you hit a key you didn't mean to type--not when you type the wrong word because you don't know any better...... Clearly you aren't fit to be President either.

This thread is full of libtard comedy gold. :laugh: